US Navy JHSV program

A few years ago the US Navy leased several catamaran style hulls from a company in Australia as a test program (High Speed Vessel or HSV). The ships
were capable of carrying 605 long tons of cargo in various configurations, including medevac, helicopter operations, or straight cargo. The Navy
chose to use them in two configurations, mine warfare, or special operations support.

The vessels far exceeded expectations, and the navy has now entered into the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) program. The first ship has been
delivered from Austal USA in Mobile, Alabama. The JHSV-1 USNS Spearhead was delivered 8 months, and $31M over budget. The second ship, the JHSV-2
Choctaw County will be delivered in June now. The schedule calls for delivery of the next vessel six months after the previous vessel. There is no
set schedule to the delivery, like there usually is with the Navy.

The JHSV ships are 338 feet, weighing in at 727 tons, and can carry 600 tons of cargo at 40 mph. The last of the JHSV ships will be delivered in 2017
now, due to the delay in the construction of JHSV-1. There will be a total of 10 JHSVs built.

The big complaint I heard about the HSV-2 Swift was that since she has such a shallow draft (11 feet), she rides rough in heavy seas. Other than
that, the crews loved her. They pulled a crew swap in 8 hours in Pearl Harbor one day. They learned that if they use a Gold and Blue crew like on a
submarine that is the most efficient way to run them.

In June of last year, they were moving a 50 ton section of ship, and it fell three feet. They had to send the generators inside back to Italy for
repairs, along with an unspecified amount of damage to the section. This was for the Vigilant (now the Choctaw County JHSV-2), but costs could have
been added to the cost of the Spearhead. They said that the fall (three feet) had the energy of a Ford F-150 hitting a fixed object at 45
mph.

Besides the LSV, don't forget about the Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) being built. Much more stable in high seas than the HSV and while not as capable
in shallows, multiple configurations of hull design are being developed. Also very fast ships.

The LCS has run into huge problems though. LCS-1 Freedom (monohull) has already run into corrosion problems, the aft door doesn't seal right, a host
of other issues (including not even knowing a torpedo has been fired at them), and they've had to change the construction procedures for LCS-3 to
correct the Freedom problems. LCS-2 Independence (trimaran) has quietly gone through her trials, and spent two years off Florida doing mine
countermeasures training, and is now home ported at San Diego with no major problems like the Freedom has had.

If you are saying that brand new designs and form factors are perfect out of the gate, you're crazy. In fact, since the 2008 launch of the LCS -
Freedom (LCS-1), the problems with the construction (which is not typical naval construction) have been addressed.

This is from the report (linked below):
"The Navy started construction of LCS 1 and 2 without a stable design and has had to
incorporate design and production changes into follow-on seaframes. When the LCS 1 and 2
construction contracts were awarded, the basic and functional design of each seaframe were
respectively only 20 percent and 15 percent complete. Construction began 1 to 2 months
following these contract awards. This concurrent design-build strategy ultimately led to
increases in construction costs."

The fact is LCS is a strategic priority to the Navy and almost one year from now, Congress will tell the United States Navy if they will still fund
it.

The technologies were employed on the fly. The design, however, is excellent and needed.

I know that they have problems from the start. It's the same with aircraft. But when they have compartments that are turned into vacuum because of a
gap in the aft door you can put your hand through, and their "active corrosion resistance" system allows corrosion to form in less than two years,
those aren't minor problems. They've even lost an engine because water leaks down through the exhaust system. All of those aren't minor teething
issues.

I've been following Freedom for awhile now. Even though they've fixed the problems, they never should have been there to begin with. I can see some
minor problems, and even one or two major ones, but these are huge design/construction failures.

Aircraft have not seen radical design changes like the LCS represent. Again, in a perfect world none of the enormous cracks would have occurred in the
hull, but a hull like the one constructed on those vessels has really never been done before. The welds must be extremely complicated, not to mention
the extraordinarily short time frame they were asked to launch the first vessel.

My assessment is this: if this naval technology is important enough to put out there so rapidly that the Navy is willing to risk those kind of lapses
in quality during construction, then it is definitely something they want.

Between the LCS and HSV, both of which are extremely shallow water capable craft (the HSV with the ability to launch Marines and their hardware just
about anywhere and take off again at 40+ knots), this is the way of the 21st century Navy.

And like any fleet, there's going to be diversity. I wonder if any new hovercraft/amphibious craft are in the making...

The LCS is an important design, because littoral ops are going to be important in the future, but they shouldn't have rushed Freedom and Independence
into service. Freedom doesn't even currently have sensors that will tell them a torpedo has been launched.

The F-22 and F-35, as much as they look like previous aircraft are pretty radical departures from normal, and they've had pretty significant
development issues. Nothing like Freedom has had, but still pretty significant issues during development.

The problem with rushing designs into service like the Navy has done is that they're going to end up getting cancelled because the cost overruns due
to development problems, and fixes to major design flaws. They're already over double the price, and climbing. They were expected to cost $212M per
hull, and are up to well over $400M and approaching the $480M ceiling, that has already been raised.

What's really odd is that the ship is designed to operate close to shore, but if they get attacked, they have to run and yell for help. From what
I've heard, the hull won't even stop a 7.62 round. Why have a ship operate close to unfriendly shores, that can't even defend itself?

That is odd. It would be interesting to know about the development issues of the HSV but it was developed differently, I believe. By a private
company.

Still, proof of concept is important especially to the big military contractors and while the budget has ballooned to nearly twice that, they'll take
the hit in the beginning if they can perfect it on the run and maintain the contract for the future.

Interestingly, Freedom was worked on by the same company that is building the JHSV ships, Austal USA in Mobile, AL. They were partnered with General
Dynamics, but during the cancellations and rebidding process, Austal decided to go separate ways with GD.

If you offered a 31 million dollar prize to the general public you would be operating the real Mccoy,anything less than a public competition means you
settle for 2nd place---second best--almost was--,this is not acceptable in good business practices,so what wrong with this picture???

Cool find dude. I had heard of the JHSV program, but didn't know that it was this far along. Maybe they should use these ships primarily as mine
warfare vessels, so that the LCS's can be used as more traditional frigates, especially if the Navy gets its head out of its a** and decides to
upgrade its Freedom class ships with that new Lockheed package that would add an elongated hull and a Mk 41 VLS and AEGIS radar. Thats what the Navy
really needs, a ship with the capabilities of a Frigate that can also operate in Littoral waters.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.